Young v. Sherman

Filing 14

ORDER DENYING 13 Motion to Appoint Counsel, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 07/24/2017. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MALCOLM YOUNG, Case No. 1:17-cv-00828-LJO-SAB-HC Petitioner, 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 13 v. 14 S. SHERMAN, 15 (ECF No. 13) Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 19 Petitioner has moved for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 13). There currently exists no 20 absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See, e.g., Chaney v. Lewis, 801 21 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th Cir. 1986); Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir. 1958). 22 However, the Criminal Justice Act authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the 23 proceeding for financially eligible persons if “the interests of justice so require.” 18 U.S.C. § 24 3006A(a)(2)(B). See also Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. To determine whether 25 to appoint counsel, the “court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the 26 ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues 27 involved.” Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). 28 /// 1 Petitioner argues that counsel should be appointed due to his limited knowledge of the 1 2 law, limited access to the law library, and the complexity of the issues involved. Upon review of 3 the petition and the instant motion for appointment of counsel, the Court finds that Petitioner 4 appears to have a sufficient grasp of his claims and the legal issues involved and that he is able to 5 articulate those claims adequately. Further, Petitioner does not demonstrate a likelihood of 6 success on the merits such that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel at the 7 present time. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for appointment of 8 9 counsel is DENIED without prejudice. 10 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: July 24, 2017 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?